Discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses can undermine the reliability of the prosecution's case and lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

1. On 12.9.1984 Sub Inspector Prithipal Singh and Head Constable Sukhminder Singh, posted at Police Post Bullowal were patrolling the area in a Government jeep. When they reached Khatiala Sainian they received secret information against the petitioner. They then proceeded to village Nainowal Bet and summoned Bawa Singh Sarpanch of the village. At about 1.15 AM a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner and he was captured red-handed while distilling illicit liquor by working a still, installed in the kitchen of his house. The still was cooled and dismantaled and articles of still were taken into possession vide recovery memo which included a drum containing about 50 kilograms of lahan. There was some liquor in the receiver bottle out of which sample was separated in a nip. The sample, receiver bottle and drum which was used as a boiler were sealed. Case was got registered and later on contents of the drum were got tested from the Excise Inspector who reported that the drum contained lahan which was partly distilled and was fit for further distillation. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge.

2. The prosecution examined Excise Inspector Dev Raj as PW-1, Sub Inspector Prithipal Singh as PW.2 and Head Constable Sukhminder Singh as PW.3 in support of its case. Bawa Singh Sarpanch was given up but he appeared in defence of the petitioner. The trial court after appraising the evidence held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 6.6.1986 recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, Harbans Singh preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner has now filed this Revision Petition assailing his conviction and sentence.

3. I have heard Mr. R.P. Dhir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Sidhu, learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab and have perused the record.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the case against the petitioner was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence in support of the prosecution version consisted of statements of the official witnesses. Although the prosecution alleged to have joined sarpanch of the village and his signatures too were obtained on the memos yet he had not witnessed the petitioner distilling illicit liquor by running a still in his house. Bawa Singh Sarpanch was examined in defence. He deposed that he was called from his house by the police and was told that some articles of still were recovered from the house of the petitioner. He was never taken along to the spot by the police nor anything was recovered in his presence. He only saw the articles of still lying in the jeep.

5. It is correct that Bawa Singh who was cited as a prosecution witness was given up on the ground that he had joined hands with the petitioner but testimony of Bawa Singh cannot be discarded on that sole ground. Bawa Singh appeared in the witness box as a defence witness and the prosecution had ample opportunity to cross-examine him and shake his credit but no question was put to this witness in his cross-examination assailing the version given by him in his examination in chief. Nothing was brought on record to show as to how he was aligned with the petitioner and was out to support him irrespective of his guilt or innocence. The testimony of the official witnesses thus has been belied by the only independent witness alleged to have been joined in the case.

6. It was next urged on behalf of the petitioner that the testimony of the official witnesses was also materially discrepant and no reliance could be placed on the same. Although